Case: 18-20280 Document: 00515008080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-20280 FILED June 24, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. IGNACIO ANDRADE-LOPEZ, also known as Tio, Defendant-Appellant --------------------------------------------------- Consolidated with 18-20282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. IGNACIO ANDRADE-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-177-1 USDC No. 4:16-CR-578-1 Case: 18-20280 Document: 00515008080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2019 No. 18-20280 c/w No. 18-20282 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ignacio Andrade-Lopez pleaded guilty in separate cases to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (Houston case) and one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine (Dallas case). He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 262 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Andrade-Lopez timely appealed. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The Government’s motion to consolidate the cases on appeal was granted. Andrade-Lopez argues that his guilty pleas in both cases were unknowing and involuntary due to the district court’s failure to properly admonish him pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As acknowledged by Andrade-Lopez, this court reviews his allegations of Rule 11 error raised for the first time on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To prevail on plain error review, Andrade-Lopez must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, i.e., not “subject to reasonable dispute,” and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Andrade-Lopez shows such an error, then this court “has the discretion to remedy the error . . . if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 Case: 18-20280 Document: 00515008080 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2019 No. 18-20280 c/w No. 18-20282 Although the district court deviated from the requirements of Rule 11(b)(1)(O) in both of his cases, Andrade-Lopez was advised via his plea agreements about the potential immigration consequences he faced upon conviction. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(O); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, Andrade-Lopez was advised via his presentence report (PSR) that his guilty pleas could result in immigration consequences if he was a noncitizen. See United States v. Vasquez-Bernal, 197 F.3d 169, 171 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, even assuming that the district court’s errors in failing to provide the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) admonishment at Andrade-Lopez’s rearraignments constituted clear or obvious errors, Andrade-Lopez has failed to demonstrate ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals